Talk:Sustainability/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Copyediting

I am having a final read through and tweaking the wording here and there where I think it can be improved or where it seems unnecessarily long or wordy. I still have a way to go. If this entails any major change of what is already there I will discuss on this page. However, it is not possible to go over every minor rearrangement of wording so I ask that editors read through what i have done to see that no injustices have been perpetrated on the article. Granitethighs (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Making changes like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=288610311 does not make a meaning more clear but rather clouds the info and ref/note. but following the sustainability principle of scale it can be equally applied that is not reffed now to the ref/note and it sounds like an assumption or o.r. is being used to write the article. It is unclear what this means now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=prev&oldid=288576435 also :2. Management of human consumption of resources, an indirect approach based largely on on information gained from economics. Again this is not sourced or reffed and sounds more like an original research without context than an encyclopedia sentence. Those are just two things I noticed. I could go on... but I hope others will come here to copy edit and format information. skip sievert (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll make sure these bits are OK. Granitethighs (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry GT, do your copyedit, when we're all ready we'll do copyedits too, any conflicts or little bits n' piece will come up which is great to unearth them because we can work through them together. Nick carson (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

My last copyediting has involved mostly minor wordsmithing to reduce space without altering content. I will attend to Skips concerns. I have inserted two new pictures, adjusted the position of others and placed the Kennedy quote that was at the end of the article into the Lead, and the windmill, smoke pic at the end. These edits all seemed sensible to me at the time (and too trivial to open up a discussion about each individual change). I have reduced the number of separated paragraphs, this condenses the text and improves the overall appearance of the article. There are a lot of references but I cannot see how to reduce them - perhaps someone else can. I cannot see a lot more to do: I would like to revisit the lead one last time; I really like the nav bars and side-bars containing links but this might not be what WP procedure prefers. There may be a tendency to "Link Farm" but again I'm not sure how to deal with that. We may want to split up the extra references into "Books" and "Articles". Oh, and the "See Also" section is a bit of a dogs breakfast at present. Copyediting is always in part a matter of taste and a few of the word changes I've done may not meet with your approval - the intention was to improve the flow of ideas that had become a bit bumpy with editing of each section independently of the rest. However, needless to say, I will follow consensus. After others have given it all a last once-over I think it is close to time to submit. Granitethighs (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can't reduce references without harming the representation of the subject matter, then we just really shouldn't reduce them. The nav bars are fantastic, I think procedures and guidelines come second to common sense, nothing beats individual analysis on a case-by-case basis. I think we can supply links and navigation without entering "link farm" territory. The see also section does need cleaning up, I attempted a few times but it's tricky as we can't include anything that's already in the article, which is a bit strange considering the umbrella nature of the subject matter. Nick carson (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Extinctions

Added some notable info to this thin section.

The Red List Index (RLI) also identifies 44 tree species in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan as under threat from extinction. It cites over-exploitation and human development as among the main threats to the region's forests, which are home to more than 300 wild fruit and nut species including apple, plum, cherry, apricot and walnut. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8036785.stm By Victoria Gill Science reporter, BBC News. The wild ancestors of common domestic fruit trees are in danger of becoming extinct, scientists have warned. Retrieved on May-08-09. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, human induced extinctions are a huge problem, we really don't know how many or at what rate we extinguish species, but it could be anywhere between 100-1000 per week, or per month? I'm not sure, however, at any rate, it is far too much. I recently finished reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and the last few paragraphs were very pertinent in echoeing my sentiment that we as human beings have the ability and thus the responsibility to help, care and protect all other life on Earth. We've just got to break this habit of destruction. I for one am not scared of such responsibility, it is the absolute least I should do, and far from patronising to other life, we as human beings are not really good at anything much except thinking and solving problems. Nick carson (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what I think. Extinction is occurring in all plant and animal groups and in all countries. It is a major problem, it is all important, and it is all of interest - but the article is already long. Are we going to keep adding media releases like this (?the third or fourth Skip has added in the last month)? Eventually I think this section should discuss extinction in general terms leading people to articles and sources that present the detailed information. Granitethighs (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. Even just a brief mention would be enough, with a wikilink to extinction or anthropogenic extinction or the current human-induced mass-extinction event (maybe an article doesn't exist for these yet?). We have to keep in mind that we need to be general and hub-like in this article, if the reader wants to know more specific information they can wikilink their way around :] Nick carson (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper development of the article seems to be being impeded by multiple editors working in tandem team as self described on this page. This frames concerns in terms of a general trend in editing activity http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&action=history - right now the editing team seems to have assumed ownership aspects of this article. skip sievert (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, you need more evidence to support your accusation. Define "proper developments". I'm confused as to why you are against a collection of editors contributing to an article rewrite/FA project. Nick carson (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not against anyone or anything... so lets not frame things negatively. I am interested in a neutral article that is well rounded and creatively presented, with a good range of pov... that follows guidelines. Please do not personalize things here. Please do not bait or taunt other editors with rhetorical questions that appear to have nothing to do with the article. skip sievert (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, your statement that proper development of the article is being impeded by multiple editors working as a team ...and that this frames concerns carries the (negative) implication that the article is being developed "improperly" by team of people acting in unison in a way that is counter-productive to the article and that this is of "concern". This is your view. A team of people is currently editing this article using collaborative editing. The agreed procedures for this collaboration are listed at the top of this talk page. Anyone is free to join the team: it is not a closed group. The current "team" did not know one-another prior to "signing up" - a view of their histories would strongly indicate that they are independently minded people. Changes are being made by consensus as part of the endeavour to gain FA status for the article. Collaboration reduces the likelihood of one person imposing a single view on the editing: it is a way of proceeding by consensus rather than trying to impose a particular view through edit wars. Your view is clearly not shared by members of the "team", and your view cannot be imposed on other editors. Your view has been stated many times - repetition does not make it either correct or accepted. The article will shortly be assessed by other editors - perhaps this could be of some consolation to you if you feel the article is clearly unsatisfactory in some way. Granitethighs (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Too right. Nick carson (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that. Since you started rewriting the article some time ago G.T. [1] with the assistance of OhanaUnited and Sunray eventually [2] - It seems like too much editorial control has been given over to the team here in my opinion [3] and that seems to have been the case for a long time [4] - As near as I can tell the team has been on this project for many moons, and in effect this may have restricted the article in its presentation to outside forces [5] because of the limited size of the team. I am also not the first person to complain that the article is overly politicized [6] -

I hope it is not viewed as disruptive to point this out... since there is to me a concerted effort to consider people not directly involved on the team here [7] and people that may have a different perspective as problematic [8] - I did not make this thread to highlight difficulties on the page. You are saying that changes are being made by the team as part of the endeavour to gain FA status for the article. This has in effect been going on continuously for a very long time. [9] - skip sievert (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I'm not sure what your getting at here. Editors are contributing in consensus and and yes, editors have been working together to improve the overall quality of the article with a goal of attaining FA status at some point. Nick carson (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say, whoever is doing the copyedit is doing a fine job. The article flows much better now and the images are great.--Travelplanner (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting continued...

I've gone through the lead, definition and history sections and really couldn't find much that I'd change, GT's copyedit is top notch. I did however, add a brief sentence on Indigenous Australians in the early civilisation section, we just can't not mention one of the longest lasting, sustainable civilisations that ever lived. And it was a civilisation, they had complex religious structures, art and music, hundreads of languages within over 250 individual nations with carefully established territories. The view that they were under-evolved and never progressed beyond hunter-gather phase is ill-founded, the civilisation evolved slowly over a long period of time (which could be anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 years) and they were able to exist sustainably on the land, never requiring the need for advanced agriculture. Their buildings and other structures were transient and highly venacular (the most sustainable form of housing) and building large-scale structures would have consumed too much resources and at the expense of too many people's well being or even lives. Sorry to harp on, but it does at the very leat warrant a brief mention. Nick carson (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(→Early civilizations: No ref/note/citation. No documentation at all of statement of numbers etc.) (undid). Nick adding new information to the article. [10] which I removed until it can be sourced. skip sievert (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, I think what has happened here summarizes our history of editing heartache. Please excuse my presumption but I think it could help you a lot on Wikipedia and your future editing if you think about what I'm about to say. Nick is clearly editing here with sincere concern that valuable information has been omitted (he is editing in good faith). I'm sure we are all familiar with that feeling, yourself especially. As another editor who thinks something is wrong with what has been said or done, what can you do? By reverting/deleting someone's work you have obliterated their suggestion. You have implied it is of no value whatsoever, best done away with altogether ... reverting someone's work is a confronting and aggressive act. When we are on the receiving end of that kind of treatment we fight back, either we put what is deleted back in or we start arguing with what has been done. Either way the path forward will be rocky and unnecessarily unpleasant. What about saying on this page something like "Nick, could you add a citation for the statement that you have inserted?" If you agree with what he said maybe you could say "You have made a good point here, with a citation this would be spot on" or some-such. If this comment sounds patronizing I'm sorry- but IMO it is the difference between successful and constructive editing and permanant editing warfare.Granitethighs (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry bout being offensive, advanced critisism isn't offensive :] I'm just a bit confused as to what is in dispute to require a citation, but I'm happy to add one or more if needed. Skip, GT, what would you like me to cite? The years? The fact that Indigenous Australians sustained their own existence for that long? The fact that Indigenous Australians existed at all? None of this is in dispute and sources can be found easily in the Indigenous Australians article and related articles. Nick carson (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

G.T. you may have your own style on Wikipedia that you think others should follow and it is fine to ask others to edit as you do, to a point. However, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other. Really the talk page discussion should be about the article. Also making up your own behavior guidelines for other editors does not really connect so much with the actual guidelines, most of which are informatively written and interesting to study. Being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable. Also... you may want to familiarize yourself with the page history button on the article. That is a record of previous edits. Nothing is ever tossed... it is all there to go back to at any time, and easily so, so the issue you have, is maybe a non issue or it looks like maybe you are not familiar with how the history tab works on the articles?

As to the edit in discussion... just making a statement like this Whilst in Australia, Indigenous Australians lived sustainably as hunter-gatherers for 40,000-100,000 years, supporting 1.7billion lives prior to European settlement. Does not work well because you did not cite any of the information as to where it came from... who made the statements, is it one statement from one source or is it a few different statements that can be tied together as to sourcing... etc. 40 to 100,000 years is a pretty large over lap. Would that not drastically alter the population numbers given as a given or factual statement in the edit? This makes the edit confusing, as it is unsourced and seems stiched together using disparate information maybe. Does that figure come from a study and can you produce a citation that could be put into the article, that leads to a footnote/refnote... to show where the information is coming from so that the information can be looked at and possibly judged? Who or what study said the figure of 1.7 billion people, and how can that be used as written, given the disparity of the time reference dates, 40 to 100 thousand years? skip sievert (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought GT was being civil :] So you'd like me to place a reference after every 5 or 6 words? Or place 3 or 4 at the end of that one sentence? I think that'd be a bit much. As I said, none of that information is in dispute, if you feel it needs to be referenced in such manner you can find all the sources you need in the lead section of the Indigenous Australians article. If one particular assertion was in dispute it would probably be the years, thus why I included a range. For convinience, the references are here... Nick carson (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that may be the way the words are phrased together as to making sense without it sounding like a directive or o.r. The time gap as to population seems rather blatant as to how that would effect the other thing presented, that is population number. - Also... Turning that sentence into a link farm does not make sense.

Also, the links you gave do not actually go to information easily that can be gone to to verify or get a better idea of discussion therein. Maybe you could rephrase the whole thing or come up with a different line of thinking about it. There is already a good example of the idea, that was trying to be gotten at, in that section now... so putting another one there may just extend the article more... which is probably not suggested right now. It may be better to trim information currently. skip sievert (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes

---

Nick, I think we would need verifiable sources for this material. I've looked at a couple of the sources you have mentioned and the date of origin of Aboriginal people in Australia is contested. The Wollongong news source says:

"It is widely accepted that the earliest inhabitants of Australia, Aborigines, arrived via the Indonesian islands. However, when did this initial migration of people occur? Currently, there is little consensus between researchers about the timing of this event...."

So we would need sources for any claims. However, I wonder whether this material is within the scope of the section, which is a broad overview of the history of sustainability. It would take a whole section to do justice to the question of the sustainability of aboriginal populations.

There is another consideration when we look at the thrust of the section. As the first sentence of the section states, hunter-gatherer societies with plenty of space merely moved on when resources were depleted. Thus, in most hunter-gatherer societies, sustainability within a territory was not in question. Where the question arose was in more complex civilizations, such as agrarian ones, or societies (such as those on smaller islands) which could not move on without losing what they had built. Sunray (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the earliest remains discovered were in southeastern Australia, dated at around 40,000 years old (some discoveries may be older) which implies that they must have migrated across the continent to reach that point (which pushes the date for occupation up to 40-80,000, some evidence suggests ever higher). General scientific consensus is that Indigenous Australians must have arrived around 100,000 years ago. But the sources aren't a big problem, there's plenty of stuff out there I can use to cite anything I assert.

My reasoning behind the inclusion of this information was really just to mention the fact that Indigenous Australians were one of the longest-lived and sustainable human beings on Earth. It's important that we mention the fact that there have been large populations of human beings that sustained their existence on the land for a very long time, rather then narrow our focus on the more complex civilisations that were unsustainable. Also, I think it's a bit naive, some would say ignorant, to assume that Indigenous Australians were not a complex civilisation, but I won't get into that discussion again.

I'd be happy if it was just at least mentioned in the same sentence as other sustainable or near sustainable peoples. So at the very least, I'm arguing for 2 words and a comma. Surely that isn't too long. Additionally, the sentence I included was hardly a link farm. Nick carson (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should find sources for anything you assert. Especially claims like 100,000 years, most I am familiar with say 40000 to 60000, even Wikipedia only says possibly 75000. As you say sources aren't a big problem so lets see them. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to weigh in too. There seems to be a consensus, based mostly on DNA analysis, that the evolutionary line of modern man (including the line leading to indigenous Australians) didn't leave Africa until about 70,000 years ago. See for example [11] which is the usual story. I'm not sure, but I think the Kalahari bushmen in Africa are meant to be the closest, genetically speaking, to this early line of modern humans. Anyway, staggering though the aboriginal (and especially migrational) history is, I must take up Sunray's point. The world has many 'indigenous' peoples that were either hunter gatherers or who managed to live in small sustainable communities. Although the aboriginal culture lasted so long it needs to be absolutely clear why it is "special" in a sustainability sense: I'm not sure that being an extremely long-lasting mostly nomadic culture is quite the point we are after ... or if it is, then we need carefully chosen and cited words to indicate how this links into the flow of what is being said in the section. Finally, I agree with you that aboriginal culture deserves a lot of respect - we Westerners have a lot to learn from it and the dismissive attitude that has been adopted is hard to comprehend. That having been said I tend to agree with the Wikipedia loose definition of civilization as "A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in towns and cities." This, I think, is the way the word is generally used and it doesn't really fit traditional aboriginal culture, even though it can be described as complex, sophisticated etc. Of course the semantics can be altered.Granitethighs (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear energy

At the present rate of usage, there's about five billion years worth of nuclear fuel on the planet. That amount isn't infinite, but the present rate of usage is negligible. That makes nuclear energy relatively sustainable in the long term (five billion years). Because of this sustainability, I think the article would better include mention of it. People need to know that nuclear energy can be sustained for a long time, long enough to possibly find other kinds of energy. John McCarthy has born all this out in his nuclear FAQ: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html - it is definitely worth a read. As I do not have the expertise to integrate the fact of nuclear sustainability into the article, I would be pleased if someone else could do so. Thanks. 74.195.16.39 (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution as to thinking about nuke power. Here are some thing to think about in that regard.

Fissionable materials

Connected article: [12]

In a paper in 1956, after a review of US fissionable reserves, M. King Hubbert notes of nuclear power:

“ There is promise, however, provided mankind can solve its international problems and not destroy itself with nuclear weapons, and provided world population (which is now expanding at such a rate as to double in less than a century) can somehow be brought under control, that we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs for at least the next few centuries of the "foreseeable future."

Hubbert later changed this position as unworkable and endorsed the idea of capturing solar power as the main means of energy for energy conversion.

Technologies such as the thorium fuel cycle, reprocessing and fast breeders can, in theory, considerably extend the life of uranium reserves. Roscoe Bartlett claims

“ Our current throwaway nuclear cycle uses up the world reserve of low-cost uranium in about 20 years. ”

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239 then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in. ”

The situation may be that only renewable things such as wind ... solar... wave.. etc. are viable and make environmental sense. Since peak oil makes us do something radically different soon... this issue becomes a burning issue as oil spirals out of control in price and availability becomes an issue also... and transportation of oil becomes another issue, (my opinion).

Hubbert went to the idea of 100% solar... as the most appropriate energy provider. skip sievert (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear power is not sustainable. Firstly, you have a finite resource, wether it lasts thousands of years of tens of years or 2 days, it's finite. Secondly, the waste produced through nuclear energy generation is so toxic, expensive and difficult to deal with, the scientifically established "best" way to deal with it is to dig a massive deep hole in an unpopulated region of the world, encase the waste in concrete and other materials to protect it from tectonics, earthquakes and tremours, and spend copious ammounts of money maintaining the encasing and facility for hundreads of thousands of years to come. Viability in the short term exclusively is not sustainable. We must seek long-term viability, there is no other option.

We must be clear on this that nuclear energy generation is not sustainable. Thus why it is not mentioned as a sustainable source of energy in this article. I know for a fact that here in Victoria, Australia, we could almost meet our energy needs through wind power alone, and that's without utilising solar energy, wave energy, etc. Using just solar and wind, we could more than cover our energy needs throughout the sustainable transition after which our energy needs would be drastically reduced as we become mroe efficient with consuming energy in general. These, coupled with the waste generated by nuclear power were not even mentioned by either of the preceding comments. Nick carson (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

You reverted information I put in twice Sunray. Also you agreed a long time ago in an informal hearing to allow others to edit the article [13] That is a violation of an editing agreement. [14] and [15] I also find your editing disruptive... as you are disrupting to make a point. The point seems to be that your team members edits are fine but others edits are not fine. Could you tell me what Sustainability governance is? ... beyond being an o.r. phrase that another editor turned into an article? [16] also where does the phrase Global sustainable human well-being: come from except from another editors imagination here as very o.r. sounding - [17]... instead of getting better the article is deteriorating because of the narrow narrow focus being used. Sad really. skip sievert (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several points here. a)I did not notice that Skip had deleted this sentence, thanks for replacing it Sunray, IMHO the article is better for its presence. Skip here reverted information, without discussion, that he alone has criticised incessantly (the UN and "sustainability governance"). Unless and until others enter the discussion, he is clearly working against the consensus on both points. The point is not that "team members edits are fine" (conspiracy theory) but that "consensus is being followed". To interminably refuse to acknowledge this point is disruptive editing. b) "sustainability governance" we have also tackled before. I think it is fine and it can be discussed on the appropriate page. It can even be regarded as a general, innocuous word like "management" if you like - it seems to be used a lot nowadays. Call it what you like as long as the point remains. I will abide by consensus. At the moment Skip you are the only one with concerns. c)I do acknowledge Skip that I have done quite a lot of copyediting and that some of this might not please everyone: it is simply not possible to discuss every single minor editing change. Having said that I take on board fully that I cannot, as it were, have a "free hand" and that what is "minor" to me maynot be so to others. I tried to confine changes to uncontroversial things - and am happy to discuss those things that dont seem appropriate. d) one change you dislike is the replacement of "human sustainability" with "sustainable human well-being". I have for some time felt that "human sustainability" does not quite convey clearly what we are talking about. This other phrase I found used by Constanza and I thought it was very neat, simple and useful(though longer). To my mind it is a minor word edit to do with style of presentation and does not require citation, but I can cite it if you like. Yes, it is a bit clumsy in the heading but I feel it works in the main text. What do others think? Granitethighs (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability governance is a phrase you took out of context from somewhere and made into an article. You then hooked that article into 2 others that you also originated from phrases from papers or websites and made that section which is o.r. in presentation.

Just out of curiosity is the article done now? You and Sunray have been working on it since Aug. of 2008? with Sunray and others in the team, correct? [18]. Are you going to ask for Featured article status soon...? Or get another appraisal. The last one did not fair so well. I am thinking the article may be downgraded from a good B article. Consensus is not really what I would call what the team does. It is too close to pov within a closed loop for that. If problems appear to be serious with the article in the next review would you consider dissolving the team as to it having not really worked out well? Then other people may have a chance to iron out some of the problems that seem overwhelming now in the article. skip sievert (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip:

• You have chosen to ignore what was said. Find a good substitute expression for "sustainability governance" rather than going on and on.
• The "team" has always been open to newcomers; it has never been "closed" to others - therefore the idea of "giving other people a chance" is a nonsense. As a visitor suggested, you seem prone to conspiracy theory.
• It is clear that you, personally, feel closed out. I am sorry about that - it is a consequence of consensus that when disagreements occur someone will be disappointed. We cannot always have our own way. The mature response is to accept gracefully that this will sometimes happen to all of us and move on - it should not be necessary to be preachy about that but I cannot think of any other way of expressing it.
• When the article is submitted for FA (or whatever) the peer review comments will be accepted in good faith and dealt with. Perhaps more to the point is ... will you accept them in good faith? You have not accepted other "external" findings (i.e. COI and UN MEA).
• I would welcome any editing assistance at any time.
• What about we just concentrate on editing the article? All these side issues are highly disruptive.

Granitethighs (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As said I do not believe that what you are doing in the team or group is consensus... at least not in the guideline sense. Others have been wedged out of the editing [19] and a very unhealthy political aspect predominates the article, complete now with some political quotes that are obviously taking sides, and the article may well have been named Sustainability and the U.N. because of its bias of pov shared by all the team players [20], its still a little hard to believe how overt that has been. Many people do not consider the U.N. material to be of good quality and its perspective is old, maybe antiquated, and arguably was not well done to begin with [21].

Your book is based on it though and its sentiments. You also took segment phrases from your recently published book and made them into separate articles, and then headings in this article as links. This seems like an effort at notability as to advertising. As to other issues [22] it appears that in that article and others you have linked your book inappropriately, without informing others.

My question is are you going to put up the article again for F.A. now? you have been saying... you and Sunray, that this is the point of what you are doing in controlling the article as a closed loop team. I have tried to put in some actual science things and interesting history aspects to the article and that may help. However, the article now in the main seems like a sad commentary as to the actual subject because of its overt political advocacy. Would you consider the team effort a failure if it does lose its 'B' status now?... and possibly break up the team so others can edit the article? skip sievert (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much to add to what Granitethighs has said. Consensus has been followed scrupulously on these pages, despite the disruptions. Although consensus is not necessarily unanimity, there has been a striking agreement among all editors of this page except Skip. This has been supported by outside editors on two occasions when questions were referred to noticeboards.

With respect to GT's question about "human sustainability": I agree that it doesn't work in the title, but the text seems fine the way you have worded it. Thanks for your copyedit, BTW, I think your revisions have been very consistent with the agreements on the talk pages. Sunray (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunray please do not try to manipulate the headings on the talk page. You can not refactor other peoples writing on the talk page. Please do not do that again. I asked a basic question about the article. When are you two going to relinquish ownership of editing the article? This has been going on now since last July or so [23] when for some reason G.T. felt others were demanding the article be rewritten? [24]. Soon after others left the editing [25]. skip sievert (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruption. Sunray (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not refactor other peoples comments on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly will refactor headings if my name is used beside slanderous allegations. This is not the place for complaints - only concerns about the article. The confused information you are presenting proves nothing and, in fact, is a personal attack. I've asked you to stop your disruption. Sunray (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so much. You altered my heading again. Your control of the article seems to extend even to the talk page. Sad really. Not really a good way to communicate with people by changing what they are saying or asking. skip sievert (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip, this is really quite petty stuff, minor edits, wording of terms and wording of talk page section titles/headings? let's all start making real contributions to WP. Nick carson (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve outstanding issues

Skip returns again and again to certain issues. IMO this is a sign of disruptive and tendentious editing. However, that is beside the point - what is more to the point is that this is, without doubt, disrupting the completion of this article and in fairness to Skip I would like to propose that we resolve this, once and for all. The issues appear to be:

• That the article is focused on the UN and that this is an "unhealthy political aspect"
• That the current articles "Sustainability science" and "Sustainability governance" are non-notable.

There was a third contentious article called "Sustainability accounting" that, in deference to the heated debate it was causing, was altered to "Sustainability measurement". Skip, you might like to alter the wording or add to the two points of the above proposal? I raise this proposal on the understanding that all parties accept, permanently, the verdict of the finding and in order to allow the article to proceed. I am not, however, sure how to activate this suggestion - do we post it on a noticeboard? Granitethighs (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as permanently accepting verdicts on Wikipedia as to how articles should present themselves, they are by nature existential in presentation, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am not standing in the way of your completing the article obviously as your team can edit any thing as it pleases, and I have not participated much in any editing as I am mostly reverted on what I think are neutrality issues... please do not present a false dichotomy as to that. I asked you 4 or 5 times now if you are ready to submit the article again. You both have been working on it now for about a year, that is you and Sunray editing together [26]. Since you do not allow my edits the issue is a non issue as to disruption... I am just asking if you might be willing to disband the current team at some point to let others edit the article also? Sunray it is not appropriate for you to change my edits on the talk page as you have done. Control of the article should include the reformatting of the talk page? [27] refactoring others comments is against guidelines. You have violated the previous informal editing agreement [28] A team of people does not trump the guidlines as to a good direction for editing the article. By controlling every aspect of the article it defeats the purpose of editing on Wikipedia, which is to allow an overview by a wide variety of people. Isn't a years worth of editing now enough to have made the article as your team desires and do you not think others should be allowed to edit here? A tag team is formed when two or more editors coordinate their edits in a way that is disruptive to an article or to the project.

Point of fact... a while back I helped to rewrite the main Economics article on Wikipedia. I wrote large sections of the article and reformatted most of the rest of it. That article gets about 140.000 hits a month. It went fairly smoothly. It is extremely stable as an article and has been since then. More recently I have organized a re presentation of History of economic thought which is now getting near done. The first article took a couple of weeks and the second about a week. There were a very very disparate group of editors involved in both of those articles. I have never run into a talk page or article like this one (Sustainability) on Wikipedia which is so narrowly defined by a team which must be signed up for.

I repeat. Since you control this article completely are you nearly done with it, as to the way you want it??? as your stated goal of being a featured article [29]? And if you get another peer review that is not so good or iffy [30] would you be willing to let other people work on the article, and possibly dissolve your team as it is not proving to be effective and has prevented others from making changes? skip sievert (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We may as well forget an FA or GA review for now. One of their first requirements is a stable article. We would have to deal with Skip's disruptions before we get to the point where we can request a review. I also object to dealing with anything but this article on this page right now. I've not been involved in the other articles and don't have time for them right now. On the other hand, I have a considerable stake in contributions to this article. I do want to see it reviewed as soon as possible.

Skip, your account of your contributions to the Economics and History of economic thought articles may not be the same as the views of other editors there. Shall we ask them their opinion?

As far as your homilies on what a team is, or is not: Thank you for your thoughts. I disagree wholeheartedly and have said so many times. Would you now please try to confine your remarks to new issues related to the article? Sunray (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New issues? I think the article is a mess in general as to a closed pov of a political nature. That and the fact that it is being controlled by too small a group. Also that Granite thighs took a couple of chapter titles from his book and elevated those to articles and now has those articles linked here in this article. Mostly two people keep an ironclad control of the actual article. I really do not edit the article to any extent as my edits have been reverted by the team... so lets not confuse things, or blame another editor if the article is not up to par. You two have worked on it non stop for about a year. I also have never disrupted the article so do not phrase things like that. I did add some science content and expanded the history section a bit.

I do want to see it reviewed as soon as possible. Good, me too. Your last review was not good [31] Since you are saying you have considerable stake in the article are you willing to admit that may include ownership issues?.. and would you be willing to allow other editors to edit the article also... as was informally agreed to before? You seemed just as adamantly opposed to G.T. when he starting editing [32]

The main problem I have with the article is the ridiculous pov of the U.N. that runs through it from top to bottom, that was even worse before [33], but is still way overboard, and that mostly from very old information that is not even current... and a lot of that information is not particularly well thought of in the first place [34]. Would that be an old or new issue? Not sure. skip sievert (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your tone continues to be hostile and challenging, IMO. Nevertheless, I will respond briefly to your contentions:

"... closed pov of a political nature." = Old issue (part of UN sourcing question, see below).

"... controlled by too small a group... ownership issues." = Old issue. Discussed on this talk page (many times). Skipsievert is alone in this view.

"... Granitethighs... book" = Old issue. Referred to outside noticeboard (no conflict of interest found).

"... ridiculous pov of the UN that runs through [the article] from top to bottom..." = Old issue. Referred to Reliable source noticeboard. Found sourcing to be appropriate. Peer reviewer's comments on tone of the article have been extensively addressed. There is a consensus that there is no "UN POV." Skipsievert is alone in this position.

Skip: We have several archives of discussion and two external reviews devoted to these issues. What good could it possibly do to keep grinding them? No one agrees with you. Do you have anything new to discuss? If not, would you please give it a rest? Also, would you be willing to modify your tone to one that is more cooperative? Sunray (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the U.N. stuff is presented as truth almost and referenced too much, and the article is mostly based around it when that is a political and not really neutral way to frame things? This pretty much proves that [35], it was glossed over, and other voices that are not so much in agreement with U.N. pov or basing the article around that p.o.v. are not really let into the article [36]... things like Sustainability governance ...? What is it? Beside a construct of imagination and U.N. links? Two other editors did agree with me... and they apparently gave up and moved off because of the limited ability to edit the article. skip sievert (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• The UN = Old issue . Nothing more to be said - Skip, get an external opinion (except that this has already been done). Anyway, try again. Indeed, what option is there?
• I, for one, would be happy to remove "Sustainability governance" if it is a problem. But I would need more than just Skip's view on this.
• Skip, you do not know why other editors moved off - and new editors are always welcome and free to join and edit at any time
• All these issues have been addressed many many times. This is the last time I deal with anything other than direct editing of the article.

Granitethighs (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely echo the comments of Sunray and GT on this one. Sorry I can't afford the time to offer a more quality response. Nick carson (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, you say above there is no point requesting a GA or FA review. We may have little chance of success as the article may be judged unstable although a more thoughtful review of these talk pages might lead to a different conclusion. I don't think that means there's no scope for an objective view of the quality of the article and of its shortcomings.

We have one editor who thinks "the article is a mess in general" and reflects "the ridiculous p.o.v. of the UN". That is an individual opinion, which I personally don't share, I think the article is looking good now and I struggle to see how to improve it. But I suggest all five of us are too close to the article to see either its good points or shortcomings in perspective. We've been involved in this editing project more than eight months now since Skip and I joined in around the same time (September 08) and everything has got a bit out of perspective. I think a fresh pair of eyes would add real value.

For this reason I'm hoping we can initiate an external review. If lack of stability is the only reason we don't get FA or GA then that in itself is useful information. If other shortcomings are identified, we'll have some focus for further work.

We could ask the reviewer to specifically give their views on whether the first item raised by GT at the top of this section ie. "the article is focused on the UN and that this is an "unhealthy political aspect", is a problem or not.

Regarding the second point, if sustainability is notable, then both studying sustainability and making sustainable governance decisions must also be notable. The bar for notability is set pretty low on Wikipedia (Amy Winehouse is notable, but Blake Fielder-Civil isn't...) Whether the "sustainability science" and "sustainability governance" articles are currently good enough is a separate issue and if we stop arguing on this page, perhaps people will have time to improve them.

Does anyone else agree about the review, and can we initiate this?--Travelplanner (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems a very reasonable suggestion - we do need outside appraisal. I agree with all your points - right this moment though I'm suffering Wikifatigue. Could someone else put out the request? Oh, and I think Sunray is right in confining attention to this article only - I'm happy to fight battles about other articles elsewhere but we shouldn't be sidetracked on this one. Granitethighs (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

FA review

There seems to be a consensus that we should submit the article for FA review. Certainly I agree that it is in good shape. There is one question I see as outstanding: The use of "Main article" templates and multiple links in article links, and infoboxes. A review of Featured Articles suggests that we may be overboard on this. I would like to either: a) reduce the use of "Main article" templates to articles that can reasonably be seen to be sub-articles of Sustainability and eliminate multiple references to weakly related articles, or b) get a peer reviewer to take a look at it.

If folks agree, I will go though and make some suggested changes, or in the alternative, refer it to peer review for comment. Sunray (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks S, IMO go ahead with your proposed changes. Could we have one last nudge at the Lead on our Lead subpage? Presumably we can ask for advice on specific points we are unsure about when it goes to review - we'll get an opinion anyway I suppose. Granitethighs (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go on the Lead page - see what you think ......... or we can forget it and press on with the FA as is. TP - you've got a talent for this sort of think what do you reckon? Granitethighs (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to work on the lead. I've made some general comments on that page. Sunray (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the first sentence is being changed on the lead discussion page. The other version being suggested is anthropomorphic, confusing and idiosyncratic.... and it does not reflect any mainstream commentary as to definition. This works and works well Sustainability, in general terms, is the ability to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. It is not a capacity to endure. Enduring is a human emotion and totally inappropriate in this context. This is a very basic observation. The word (endure) is frequently used to describe the capacity of biological systems to remain diverse and productive over time. Not true and not referenced and not pertinent to any understanding of this concept. Please do not make this very basic and glaring edit misapplication as to wording. skip sievert (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the ability to sustain certain processes or states in systems. No intricate or slow evolution in rewording can escape it. In fact, it's most basic definition is "the ability to sustain". Considering it's such a very comprehensive subject matter, the more basic the definition, the better. I'm happy to accept something like endure in place of "sustain" as we had already done. Nick carson (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We had not already 'done' that. Its a bad idea. The ability to balance and sustain its functions for human habitation... is better. Enduring is a poetic concept that does not relate to the subject... it is flowery and nonsensical in this context. It makes the earth sound like a wistful and romantic entity. It is not though. It is a planet. skip sievert (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the concept you are putting forward. It is possible that you are referring to the transitive form of the verb:

• [ trans. ] suffer (something painful or difficult) patiently : it seemed impossible that anyone could endure such pain.

• tolerate (someone or something) : I was a fool to endure him for so long.

I believe that we are using it in the intransitive:

• [ intrans. ] remain in existence; last : these cities have endured through time.

Would you be able to provide a source for your statement that "'enduring' is a poetic concept"? Sunray (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Frivolously requesting citations for obvious or well known information is not suggested. Its pretty obvious what I am saying. My opinion is it is bad phrasing... and confusing, and anthropomorphic. skip sievert (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a citation, because this seems like your personal POV. Would you be able to explain what is "confusing and anthropomorphic" about it? Sunray (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to explain what is not confusing and anthropomorhic about it? Sorry, I am tired of rhetorical questions about the editing teams desires. Do as you please. Your team controls the article so really my opinion is not going to count anyway. It is flowery, rococo and bombastic and a poor choice in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Sunray's question (paraphrased) "explain what is "confusing and anthropomorphic"", was a rhetorical one. I assume he was just wondering what you thought was 'confusing and anthropomorphic' about it. The "editing team" does't desire answers, let alone ask, rhetorical questions, that were never initially rhetorical anyway. The "editing team" doesn't "control the article" and regardless of what you seem to think, your opinion does matter. Many editors are very friendly in taking your opinion on board and answering your questions. I think you just need to be a bit more concise, stay on track, keep relevent and listen to what others are telling you :] Take it on board, absorb it and adress the concerns. Nick carson (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Main article / Further information tags

I've made a pass through the article, changing tags used to refer readers to other articles. Where the referred article wasn't obviously a "sub-article," I've used the "Further information" tag. Hope that works. Sunray (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job! It works very well :] Nick carson (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)